Chullin Daf 66 (חולין דף ס״ו)
Daf: 66 | Amudim: 66a – 66b | Date: Loading...
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (66a)
Segment 1
TYPE: גמרא
The root of the dispute: the school of Rav vs. the school of R’ Yishmael on the long-headed grasshopper
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בְּמַאי קָמִיפַּלְגִי תָּנָא דְּבֵי רַב וְתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל? בְּרֹאשׁוֹ אָרוֹךְ קָמִיפַּלְגִי.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: With regard to what do the tanna of the study hall, who taught the first baraita above, and the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael disagree? They disagree with regard to a grasshopper whose head is long. According to the tanna of the study hall it is prohibited, and according to the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael it is permitted.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara locates the precise point of disagreement between the two baraitot of the previous daf. They differ over the long-headed grasshopper: the school of Rav forbids it, while the school of Rabbi Yishmael permits it. The next two segments trace this back to the two schools’ differing analyses of the verse’s structure.
Key Terms:
- תָּנָא דְּבֵי רַב = the tanna of the study hall (school of Rav)
- תָּנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל = the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael
- רֹאשׁוֹ אָרוֹךְ = its head is long — the disputed case
Segment 2
TYPE: דרשה
School of Rav reads klal-prat (generalization + detail): only species like the named ones, in two aspects
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּנָא דְּבֵי רַב סָבַר: ״אֲשֶׁר לוֹ כְּרָעַיִם״ – כָּלַל, ״אַרְבֶּה״ ״סׇלְעָם״ ״חַרְגֹּל״ ״חָגָב״ ״לְמִינֵהוּ״ – פָּרַט, כְּלָל וּפְרָט אֵין בַּכְּלָל אֶלָּא מַה שֶּׁבַּפְּרָט, דְּמִינֵיהּ – אִין, דְּלָאו (דמיניה) [מִינֵּיהּ] – לָא, וּמְרַבֵּי דְּדָמֵי לֵיהּ מִשְּׁנֵי צְדָדִין.
English Translation:
The Gemara elaborates: The tanna of the study hall holds that the previous verse, permitting all species “which have jointed legs” (Leviticus 11:21), is a generalization. The species arbeh, solam, ḥargol, and ḥagav, and the phrase “after its kinds,” that appears after each, are a detail. As a rule, in any instance of a generalization and a detail, the generalization includes only that which is spelled out in the detail. Therefore, only grasshoppers of the same species as those detailed in the verse are kosher. Grasshoppers that are not of the same species as them are not kosher. And the phrase “after its kinds” amplifies the halakha to include grasshoppers that are similar to the named species in two aspects, i.e., that are very similar to them. Since all the named species have short heads, grasshoppers with long heads are forbidden.
קלאוד על הדף:
The school of Rav parses the verses as a klal u-frat (generalization followed by detail). ‘Which has jointed legs’ is the klal; the four named species plus their ‘after its kinds’ are the prat. The rule of klal-prat is that the general includes only what the detail specifies — so only the named species and what resembles them in two aspects qualify. Since all four named species have short heads, a long-headed grasshopper falls outside and is forbidden.
Key Terms:
- כְּלָל וּפְרָט = generalization and detail
- אֵין בַּכְּלָל אֶלָּא מַה שֶּׁבַּפְּרָט = the general includes only what is in the detail
- מִשְּׁנֵי צְדָדִין = [resembling] in two aspects — the stricter inclusion
Segment 3
TYPE: דרשה
School of R’ Yishmael reads klal-prat-klal: anything resembling the detail in even one aspect is included
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל סָבַר: ״אֲשֶׁר לוֹ כְרָעַיִם״ – כָּלַל, ״אַרְבֶּה״ ״סׇלְעָם״ ״חַרְגֹּל״ ״חָגָב״ – פָּרַט, ״לְמִינֵהוּ״ – חָזַר וְכָלַל, כְּלָל וּפְרָט וּכְלָל – אִי אַתָּה דָן אֶלָּא כְעֵין הַפְּרָט, וּמְרַבֵּי כֹּל דְּדָמֵי לֵיהּ בְּחַד צַד.
English Translation:
By contrast, the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael holds that the phrase “which have jointed legs” is a generalization. The species arbeh, solam, ḥargol, and ḥagav are a detail. And by the phrase “after its kinds” after each species, it then generalized again. In any instance of a generalization, and a detail, and a generalization, you may deduce that the verse is referring only to items similar to the detail. And the verse therefore amplifies the halakha to include any grasshopper that is similar to the named species in even one aspect, i.e., that has the four signs listed in the mishna, even if its head is long.
קלאוד על הדף:
The school of Rabbi Yishmael instead reads the verses as klal-prat-klal (generalization, detail, generalization): ‘which has jointed legs’ (klal), the four named species (prat), and ‘after its kinds’ (a second klal). The rule of klal-prat-klal is that one includes whatever resembles the detail — but in even one aspect, a broader inclusion. So any grasshopper bearing the four signs is kosher, even with a long head.
Key Terms:
- כְּלָל וּפְרָט וּכְלָל = generalization, detail, generalization
- אִי אַתָּה דָן אֶלָּא כְעֵין הַפְּרָט = you derive only what is similar to the detail
- בְּחַד צַד = [resembling] in one aspect — the broader inclusion
Segment 4
TYPE: קושיא
Objection: the two generalizations are dissimilar (jointed legs vs. all four signs), so klal-prat-klal shouldn’t apply
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהָא לָא דָּמֵי כְּלָלָא קַמָּא לִכְלָלָא בָּתְרָא? כְּלָלָא קַמָּא – ״אֲשֶׁר לוֹ כְרָעַיִם״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, דְּאִית לֵיהּ אֱכוֹל, דְּלֵית לֵיהּ לָא תֵּיכוֹל. כְּלָלָא בָּתְרָא – עַד דְּשָׁווּ בְּאַרְבָּעָה סִימָנִין.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: But how can this be considered a generalization, a detail, and a generalization? The first generalization is not similar to the latter generalization. In the first generalization, the Merciful One states: “Which have jointed legs,” indicating that you may eat a grasshopper that has jointed legs, but you may not eat one that does not have jointed legs, irrespective of any other sign. However, the latter generalization: “After its kinds,” indicates that no grasshopper is kosher unless it shares all four signs with the named species.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara objects that the verse cannot truly be a klal-prat-klal, because the two generalizations are not alike. The first klal (‘which has jointed legs’) makes the single sign of jointed legs decisive — eat what has it, not what lacks it. The second klal (‘after its kinds’) implies kashrut only when all four signs match the named species. Since the two generalizations express different criteria, the standard klal-prat-klal mechanism should not operate.
Key Terms:
- כְּלָלָא קַמָּא / כְּלָלָא בָּתְרָא = the first generalization / the latter generalization
- אֲשֶׁר לוֹ כְרָעַיִם = ‘which has jointed legs’ — the first, single-sign klal
- אַרְבָּעָה סִימָנִין = the four signs — the criterion of the latter klal
Segment 5
TYPE: תירוץ
The school of R’ Yishmael does apply klal-prat-klal even to dissimilar generalizations — derived from here
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בִּכְלָלֵי וּפְרָטֵי כִּי הַאי גַוְונָא דָּאֵין, וּדְאָמְרִינַן נָמֵי בְּעָלְמָא דְּדָאֵין תָּנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בִּכְלָלֵי וּפְרָטֵי כִּי הַאי גַוְונָא מֵהָכָא.
English Translation:
The Gemara responds: The tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael deduces from generalizations and details like this case, even if the generalizations are not similar to one another. The Gemara notes: And that which we also say generally, that the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael deduces from generalizations and details like this case, is derived from here.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara answers that the school of Rabbi Yishmael does expound klal-prat-klal even when the two generalizations are dissimilar, as here. It adds a meta-note: this very passage is the source for the broader principle, stated elsewhere, that the school of Rabbi Yishmael applies the klal-prat-klal hermeneutic even to non-matching generalizations.
Key Terms:
- בִּכְלָלֵי וּפְרָטֵי = by [the method of] generalizations and details
- כִּי הַאי גַוְונָא = in a case like this (dissimilar generalizations)
- דָּאֵין = expounds / derives
Segment 6
TYPE: גמרא
Revisiting ‘after its kinds requires all signs’ — why would one think otherwise, given arbeh and chargol?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר מָר: אִי שְׁמוֹ ״חָגָב״, יָכוֹל אֵין בּוֹ כׇּל הַסִּימָנִין הַלָּלוּ? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״לְמִינֵהוּ״ – עַד שֶׁיְּהוּ בּוֹ כׇּל הַסִּימָנִין הַלָּלוּ. אֵין בּוֹ כׇּל הַסִּימָנִין הַלָּלוּ מֵהֵיכָא תֵּיתֵי? ״אַרְבֶּה״ וְ״חַרְגּוֹל״ כְּתִיב!
English Translation:
The Gemara analyzes the baraita of the school of Rabbi Yishmael: The Master said: If its name must be ḥagav, one might have thought that any ḥagav is kosher, even if it does not have all these four signs. Therefore, the verse states: “After its kinds,” indicating that it is not kosher unless it has all these signs. The Gemara asks: From where would this be derived, that a grasshopper is kosher even if it does not have all these signs? How could one entertain this possibility? Arbeh and ḥargol are written beforehand, indicating that all kosher grasshoppers must share the signs they both possess.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara revisits the school of Rabbi Yishmael’s earlier statement that ‘after its kinds’ teaches that a named chagav still needs all four signs. It questions the premise: from where would anyone think a chagav could be kosher without all the signs, given that arbeh and chargol are written, whose shared signs already define the kosher category? The next segment answers via the surprising role of ‘solam.’
Key Terms:
- אִי שְׁמוֹ חָגָב = ‘if its name is chagav’ — the entertained leniency
- כׇּל הַסִּימָנִין = all the signs
- מֵהֵיכָא תֵּיתֵי = ‘from where would [this notion] come?‘
Segment 7
TYPE: תירוץ
Because ‘solam’ expands to long-headed ones, one might over-expand to any chagav; ‘after its kinds’ blocks it
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אִי לָא כְּתִיב ״סׇלְעָם״ – כִּדְקָאָמְרַתְּ, הַשְׁתָּא דִּכְתִיב ״סׇלְעָם״ – לְרַבּוֹיֵי רֹאשׁוֹ אָרוֹךְ, אֵימָא לִירַבֵּי נָמֵי כֹּל דְּהוּ – קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
English Translation:
The Gemara responds: If solam had not been written as well, it would be as you said. But now that it is written: “Solam,” to include long-headed grasshoppers even though none of the named species have long heads, I will say: Let us also include any grasshopper that is called ḥagav. Therefore, the phrase “after its kinds” teaches us that this is not so.
קלאוד על הדף:
The answer hinges on ‘solam.’ Had solam not been written, the premise would hold (all signs clearly required). But since solam is written precisely to include long-headed grasshoppers — even though no named species has a long head — one might over-generalize and include any creature called chagav, signs or not. To preclude that, ‘after its kinds’ teaches that even a named chagav is kosher only with all four signs.
Key Terms:
- לְרַבּוֹיֵי רֹאשׁוֹ אָרוֹךְ = [solam written] to include the long-headed [grasshopper]
- כֹּל דְּהוּ = ‘anything [called chagav]’ — the over-broad inclusion to be blocked
- קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן = ‘this teaches us’ [otherwise]
Segment 8
TYPE: גמרא
Reconciling the two baraitot’s reversed identifications of solam/chargol — local naming conventions
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַאי שְׁנָא הָתָם דְּאָמְרַתְּ: ״סׇלְעָם״ – זֶה ״רָשׁוֹן״, ״חַרְגֹּל״ – זֶה ״נִיפּוּל״, וּמַאי שְׁנָא הָכָא דְּאָמְרַתְּ: ״סׇלְעָם״ – זֶה ״נִיפּוּל״, ״חַרְגֹּל״ – זֶה ״רָשׁוֹן״? מָר כִּי אַתְרֵיהּ וּמָר כִּי אַתְרֵיהּ.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: What is different there, in the baraita of the study hall, that you say that the solam is the rashon, and the ḥargol is the nippul, and what is different here, in the baraita of the school of Rabbi Yishmael, that you say: The solam is the nippul, and the ḥargol is the rashon? The Gemara responds: This Sage refers to them in accordance with the custom of his locale and that Sage refers to them in accordance with the custom of his locale.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara notes that the two baraitot identify the species inconsistently: the school of Rav calls the solam ‘rashon’ and the chargol ‘nippul,’ whereas the school of Rabbi Yishmael reverses them (solam = nippul, chargol = rashon). It resolves the discrepancy as a matter of regional vocabulary — each Sage names the species according to the usage of his own locale, with no substantive dispute.
Key Terms:
- סׇלְעָם / חַרְגֹּל = the solam / the chargol — named differently by each school
- רָשׁוֹן / נִיפּוּל = rashon / nippul — the local names
- מָר כִּי אַתְרֵיהּ = ‘this Sage according to his locale’
Segment 9
TYPE: ברייתא
The fish sign (fin + scale) begins; a fish that grows scales later, or sheds them on capture, is kosher (continues 66b)
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּבַדָּגִים כֹּל שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ סְנַפִּיר וְקַשְׂקֶשֶׂת. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אֵין לוֹ עַכְשָׁיו וְעָתִיד לְגַדֵּל לְאַחַר זְמַן, כְּגוֹן הַסּוּלְתָּנִית וְהָעַפְיָאן – הֲרֵי זֶה מוּתָּר. יֵשׁ לוֹ עַכְשָׁיו וְעָתִיד לְהַשִּׁירָן בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁעוֹלֶה מִן הַמַּיִם, כְּגוֹן
English Translation:
§ The mishna states: And with regard to fish, any fish that has a fin and a scale is kosher. The Sages taught in a baraita: If a fish does not have scales now but will grow them after a period of time, such as the sultanit and afyan fish, it is permitted. Likewise, if it has scales now but will shed them when it is caught and rises from the water, such as
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara turns to the mishna’s rule that a fish with a fin (senappir) and a scale (kaskeset) is kosher. A baraita extends this in two directions: a fish lacking scales now but destined to grow them later (e.g. the sultanit and afyan) is kosher; and a fish that has scales now but sheds them upon being lifted from the water is also kosher. The list of the latter type runs onto 66b.
Key Terms:
- סְנַפִּיר וְקַשְׂקֶשֶׂת = a fin and a scale — the two kosher fish-signs
- סּוּלְתָּנִית וְעַפְיָאן = the sultanit and afyan — fish that grow scales only later
- עָתִיד לְהַשִּׁירָן = destined to shed them [the scales upon capture]
Amud Bet (66b)
Segment 1
TYPE: ברייתא
The list completed: fish that shed scales on capture (akunas, afunas, etc.) are kosher
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲקוּנָס וַאֲפוּנָס כְּסֶפַּתְיָאס וְאֶכְּסְפַּטְיָאס וַאֲטוּנָס – הֲרֵי זֶה מוּתָּר.
English Translation:
the akunas, and the afunas, and the kesaftiyas, and the akhsaftiyas, and the atunas, it is permitted.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita’s second category is completed with its examples: the akunas, afunas, kesaftiyas, akhsaftiyas, and atunas — fish that bear scales in the water but shed them when caught and pulled out. All are kosher, since the requirement is that the fish have scales at some point in its life, not that it retain them when caught.
Key Terms:
- אֲקוּנָס / אֲפוּנָס / אֲטוּנָס = akunas / afunas / atunas — fish that shed scales on capture
- הֲרֵי זֶה מוּתָּר = ‘this one is permitted’
Segment 2
TYPE: משנה (מובאת)
A cited mishna (Nidda 51b): every fish with scales has fins; scales+fins = kosher, fins alone = non-kosher
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תְּנַן הָתָם: כֹּל שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ קַשְׂקֶשֶׂת יֵשׁ לוֹ סְנַפִּיר, וְיֵשׁ שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ סְנַפִּיר וְאֵין לוֹ קַשְׂקֶשֶׂת. יֵשׁ לוֹ קַשְׂקֶשֶׂת וְיֵשׁ לוֹ סְנַפִּיר – דָּג טָהוֹר, יֵשׁ לוֹ סְנַפִּיר וְאֵין לוֹ קַשְׂקֶשֶׂת – דָּג טָמֵא.
English Translation:
We learned in a mishna elsewhere (Nidda 51b): Any fish that has scales certainly has fins, but there are fish that have fins and do not have scales. Any fish that has scales and fins is a kosher fish. If it has fins but no scales, it is a non-kosher fish.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara cites a mishna from Nidda (51b): every fish that has scales necessarily also has fins, but some fish have fins without scales. A fish with both scales and fins is kosher; a fish with fins but no scales is non-kosher. Since scales always imply fins, the scale is effectively the decisive sign — which sets up the next question.
Key Terms:
- קַשְׂקֶשֶׂת = scales — the sign that always implies fins
- סְנַפִּיר = fins — present even in non-kosher fish
- דָּג טָהוֹר / דָּג טָמֵא = a kosher fish / a non-kosher fish
Segment 3
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
Why write both signs if scales suffice? Lest one think ‘kaskeset’ means fins and permit non-kosher fish
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מִכְּדֵי אַקַּשְׂקֶשֶׂת קָא סָמְכִינַן, לִיכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא קַשְׂקֶשֶׂת וְלָא לִיכְתּוֹב סְנַפִּיר! אִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא קַשְׂקֶשֶׂת וְלָא כְּתַב סְנַפִּיר, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: מַאי קַשְׂקֶשֶׂת? סְנַפִּיר, וַאֲפִילּוּ דָּג טָמֵא. כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא סְנַפִּיר וְקַשְׂקֶשֶׂת.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: Now, since we rely only on scales to deem a fish kosher, presuming that if it has scales it must have fins as well, let the Merciful One write only “scales” as the sign of a kosher fish and let Him not write “fins” at all. The Gemara responds: If the Merciful One had written: Scales [kaskeset], and had not written: Fins [senappir], I would say: What is kaskeset? It is fins. And I would thereby come to permit even non-kosher fish. Therefore, the Merciful One stated: “Senappir and kaskeset,” to leave no room for error.
קלאוד על הדף:
Since kashrut effectively turns on scales alone (scales imply fins), the Gemara asks why the Torah bothered to write ‘fins’ at all — let it write only ‘scales.’ It answers that had only kaskeset been written, one might have mistaken kaskeset to mean fins and thereby permitted non-kosher fish (which have fins). Writing both ‘senappir and kaskeset’ removes that ambiguity.
Key Terms:
- אַקַּשְׂקֶשֶׂת קָא סָמְכִינַן = we rely on [the] scales [as the decisive sign]
- לִיכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא = ‘let the Merciful One [Torah] write’
- הֲוָה אָמֵינָא = ‘I would have said/thought’
Segment 4
TYPE: קושיא
But a verse proves kaskeset = scales (armor); so the question returns — why write ‘fins’?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהַשְׁתָּא דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא סְנַפִּיר וְקַשְׂקֶשֶׂת, מִמַּאי דְּקַשְׂקֶשֶׂת לְבוּשָׁא הוּא, דִּכְתִיב ״וְשִׁרְיוֹן קַשְׂקַשִּׂים הוּא לָבוּשׁ״, וְלִיכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא קַשְׂקֶשֶׂת וְלָא לִיכְתּוֹב סְנַפִּיר?
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: But now that the Merciful One has written: “Senappir and kaskeset,” from where is it derived that kaskeset denotes clothing, i.e., scales, rather than fins? As it is written: “And he was clad with a coat of scale armor [kaskasim]” (I Samuel 17:5). And if it is certain that kaskeset refers to scales, the question resurfaces: Let the Merciful One write only “kaskeset,” and let Him not write “senappir.”
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara presses back: now that we know kaskeset means scales — proven from ‘a coat of scale-armor [kaskasim]’ (I Samuel 17:5), describing Goliath’s mail — the earlier worry dissolves, and the question returns: let the Torah write only ‘kaskeset’ and omit ‘senappir,’ since the meaning of kaskeset is unambiguous. This sets up the answer that the Torah’s extra word is deliberate generosity.
Key Terms:
- לְבוּשָׁא = clothing/covering — the meaning of kaskeset (scales)
- שִׁרְיוֹן קַשְׂקַשִּׂים = ‘a coat of scale-armor’ (I Samuel 17:5)
- מִמַּאי = ‘from where [do we know]?’
Segment 5
TYPE: תירוץ / דרשה
Rabbi Abbahu: ‘to make the Torah great and glorious’ — God expanded the Torah beyond strict need
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ, וְכֵן תָּנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: ״יַגְדִּיל תּוֹרָה וְיַאְדִּיר״.
English Translation:
Rabbi Abbahu said, and so the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: The Holy One, Blessed be He, wished to bestow good upon the Jewish people. Therefore, He made their Torah abundant, as it is written: “The Lord was pleased, for His righteousness’ sake, to make Torah great and glorious” (Isaiah 42:21). He consequently expanded some aspects of the Torah more than strictly necessary.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Abbahu (and the school of Rabbi Yishmael) resolves the apparent redundancy not by logical necessity but by a principle of Divine generosity: God wished to confer merit on Israel by enlarging the Torah, as ‘the Lord was pleased, for His righteousness’ sake, to make the Torah great and glorious’ (Isaiah 42:21). The extra word ‘senappir’ is thus an intentional expansion, multiplying the Torah’s words and the opportunities for its study, not a logical surplus to be explained away.
Key Terms:
- יַגְדִּיל תּוֹרָה וְיַאְדִּיר = ‘make the Torah great and glorious’ (Isaiah 42:21)
- לְזַכּוֹת אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל = to confer merit upon Israel
Segment 6
TYPE: ברייתא
The fish signs are stated both positively and negatively to make eating non-kosher fish both a positive and a negative violation
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מִמַּשְׁמָע שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״אֱכוֹל אֶת שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ״, שׁוֹמֵעַ אֲנִי ״אַל תֹּאכַל אֶת שֶׁאֵין לוֹ״, וּמִמַּשְׁמָע שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״אַל תֹּאכַל אֶת שֶׁאֵין לוֹ״, שׁוֹמֵעַ אֲנִי ״אֱכוֹל אֶת שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ״. וְלָמָּה שְׁנָאָן? לַעֲבוֹר עָלָיו בַּעֲשֵׂה וְלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה.
English Translation:
§ The Sages taught in a baraita: The Torah states the prohibition of non-kosher fish both positively and negatively: “These may you eat of all that are in the waters: Whatever has fins and scales…them you may eat. And all that have not fins and scales…they are a detestable thing unto you” (Leviticus 11:9–10). From the implication of that which is stated: Eat fish that have these signs, I would derive the inverse: Do not eat fish that do not have them. And from the implication of that which is stated: Do not eat fish that do not have them, I would derive the inverse: Eat fish that have them. If so, why did the Torah teach both of them? It is in order to indicate that one who eats non-kosher fish transgresses, on its account, both a positive mitzva and a prohibition.
קלאוד על הדף:
A baraita addresses why the Torah states the fish-signs both as a positive (‘eat what has them’) and a negative (‘do not eat what lacks them’), since each implies the other. The purpose is to attach a double liability: one who eats a non-kosher fish transgresses both a positive commandment (by failing to eat only what is permitted) and a prohibition (the explicit negative), compounding the offense.
Key Terms:
- אֱכוֹל אֶת שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ = ‘eat that which has [the signs]’ — the positive formulation
- אַל תֹּאכַל אֶת שֶׁאֵין לוֹ = ‘do not eat that which lacks [them]’ — the negative
- בַּעֲשֵׂה וְלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה = [liable] for a positive commandment and a prohibition
Segment 7
TYPE: דרשה
Why ‘all that are in the waters’? To permit tiny water-creatures in pits, ditches, and caves
Hebrew/Aramaic:
״תֹּאכְלוּ מִכֹּל אֲשֶׁר בַּמָּיִם״, מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר? שֶׁיָּכוֹל הוֹאִיל וְהִתִּיר בִּמְפוֹרָשׁ וְהִתִּיר בִּסְתָם, מָה כְּשֶׁהִתִּיר בִּמְפוֹרָשׁ לֹא הִתִּיר אֶלָּא בְּכֵלִים, אַף כְּשֶׁהִתִּיר בִּסְתָם לֹא הִתִּיר אֶלָּא בְּכֵלִים. מִנַּיִן לְרַבּוֹת בּוֹרוֹת שִׁיחִין וּמְעָרוֹת, שֶׁשּׁוֹחֶה וְשׁוֹתֶה מֵהֶן וְאֵינוֹ נִמְנָע? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״תֹּאכְלוּ מִכֹּל אֲשֶׁר בַּמָּיִם״.
English Translation:
Given that the verse states: “Whatever has fins and scales…them may you eat,” what is the meaning when the verse states: “These may you eat of all that are in the waters?” Why is this necessary? It is necessary, as without this verse one might have thought: Since the Torah permitted creeping creatures of the water without fins and scales explicitly and also permitted them implicitly, one can infer: Just as when the Torah permitted such creatures explicitly, it permitted them only when in vessels, so too, when it permitted them implicitly, it permitted them only in vessels. From where is it derived to include as kosher even those in pits, ditches, and caves, that one may bend down and drink from them and need not refrain from drinking the creeping creatures in them? The verse states: “These may you eat of all that are in the waters,” to indicate that this is permitted.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita asks why, given the fins-and-scales rule, the Torah adds ‘these you may eat of all that are in the waters.’ Without it, one might think that just as water-creatures lacking signs are permitted only when in vessels (drawn water), so too the implicit permission is limited to vessels. The extra phrase teaches that one may even bend down and drink from pits, ditches, and caves without straining out the tiny creatures in them.
Key Terms:
- תֹּאכְלוּ מִכֹּל אֲשֶׁר בַּמָּיִם = ‘these you may eat of all that are in the waters’
- בּוֹרוֹת שִׁיחִין וּמְעָרוֹת = pits, ditches, and caves
- שׁוֹחֶה וְשׁוֹתֶה = bends down and drinks [without concern]
Segment 8
TYPE: דרשה
Where did the Torah permit creatures in vessels? ‘In the seas and in the rivers’ limits the sign-requirement to those
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הֵיכָן הִתִּיר בְּכֵלִים? דִּכְתִיב: ״אֶת זֶה תֹּאכְלוּ מִכֹּל אֲשֶׁר בַּמָּיִם וְגוֹ׳״, בַּיַּמִּים וּבַנְּחָלִים הוּא דְּכִי אִית לֵיהּ – אֱכוֹל, דְּלֵית לֵיהּ – לָא תֵּיכוֹל, הָא בְּכֵלִים – אַף עַל גַּב דְּלֵית לֵיהּ – אֱכוֹל.
English Translation:
The Gemara elaborates: Where did the Torah permit them in vessels? It did so in the following verse, as it is written: “These may you eat of all that are in the waters: Whatever has fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them may you eat.” It would have been sufficient to write simply: “In the waters.” The addition of “in the seas and in the rivers” indicates that it is only in the seas and in the rivers that when it has fins and scales you may eat it, and that you may not eat one that does not have them. But with regard to a creeping creature found in vessels, even if it does not have fins and scales you may eat it.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara locates the source for permitting sign-less water-creatures in vessels: the verse specifies ‘in the seas and in the rivers.’ That added specification confines the fins-and-scales requirement to creatures from seas and rivers — implying that a tiny creature found in a vessel (detached water) is permitted even without fins and scales.
Key Terms:
- בַּיַּמִּים וּבַנְּחָלִים = ‘in the seas and in the rivers’
- בְּכֵלִים = in vessels (drawn/detached water)
- אַף עַל גַּב דְּלֵית לֵיהּ = even though it lacks [the signs]
Segment 9
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
Objection: maybe vessels are stricter? Refuted from the parallel negative verse ‘in the seas and rivers’
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֵימָא: בְּכֵלִים – אַף עַל גַּב דְּאִית לֵיהּ לָא תֵּיכוֹל? לָא סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְכֹל אֲשֶׁר אֵין לוֹ סְנַפִּיר וְקַשְׂקֶשֶׂת בַּיַּמִּים וּבַנְּחָלִים מִכֹּל שֶׁרֶץ הַמַּיִם״ – בַּיַּמִּים וּבַנְּחָלִים דְּלֵית לֵיהּ לָא תֵּיכוֹל, הָא בְּכֵלִים – אַף עַל גַּב דְּלֵית לֵיהּ אֱכוֹל.
English Translation:
The Gemara objects: One could just as easily say the opposite: You may eat a fish that has these signs only when it is found in seas and rivers, but in vessels, even if it has fins and scales, you may not eat it. The Gemara responds: This should not enter your mind, as it is written: “And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that swarm in the waters, and of all the living creatures that are in the waters, they are a detestable thing to you.” The verse indicates that it is only in the seas and in the rivers that you may not eat a fish that does not have fins and scales. But you may eat a creeping creature found in vessels, even if it does not have fins and scales.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara objects that one might read it oppositely — that a fish is permitted only in seas and rivers, but in a vessel even a fish with signs would be forbidden. It refutes this from the negative verse, which likewise specifies ‘in the seas and in the rivers’ for the prohibition: it is only there that a sign-less fish is forbidden, so in a vessel a sign-less creature is permitted — confirming that vessels are the lenient case, not the stricter one.
Key Terms:
- אֵימָא = ‘say [instead]’ — proposing the opposite reading
- וְכֹל אֲשֶׁר אֵין לוֹ = ‘and all that does not have [fins and scales]’ — the negative verse
- לָא סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ = ‘this should not enter your mind’
Segment 10
TYPE: קושיא
Why not read it as klal-prat (‘waters’ / ‘seas and rivers’)? Then the extra verse would be unnecessary
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאֵימָא: ״בַּמַּיִם״ – כָּלַל, ״בַּיַּמִּים וּבַנְּחָלִים״ – פָּרַט, כְּלָל וּפְרָט – אֵין בַּכְּלָל אֶלָּא מַה שֶּׁבַּפְּרָט; יַמִּים וּנְחָלִים – אִין, נְעִיצִין וַחֲרִיצִין – לֹא.
English Translation:
The Gemara objects: But one can prove whether it is permitted to drink from pits, ditches, and caves differently. Say instead that the phrase “whatever has fins and scales in the waters” is a generalization, and the phrase “in the seas and in the rivers” is a detail. In any instance of a generalization and a detail, the generalization only includes that which is spelled out in the detail. Therefore, in the seas and rivers, yes, one may eat only fish with fins and scales, but in water channels and trenches, as well as pits, ditches, and caves, this restriction does not apply. Consequently, the clause “These may you eat of all that are in the waters” is unnecessary.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara raises a competing exegesis: read ‘in the waters’ as a generalization and ‘in the seas and in the rivers’ as a detail. By klal-prat (general includes only the detail), only seas and rivers require the signs, while channels, trenches, pits, ditches, and caves do not — which would prove the pits-and-caves leniency directly, making the extra clause ‘these you may eat of all that are in the waters’ unnecessary.
Key Terms:
- בַּמַּיִם – כָּלַל = ‘in the waters’ as a generalization
- בַּיַּמִּים וּבַנְּחָלִים – פָּרַט = ‘in the seas and rivers’ as a detail
- נְעִיצִין וַחֲרִיצִין = water-channels and trenches
Segment 11
TYPE: תירוץ
‘In the waters’ recurs, making it klal-prat-klal — so the extra verse is needed for pits/ditches/caves
Hebrew/Aramaic:
״בַּמַּיִם״ – חָזַר וְכָלַל.
English Translation:
The Gemara responds: This deduction is not sound. The term “in the waters” appears twice in the verse. When the verse repeated it, it then generalized again. Consequently, there are two generalizations and one detail in the verse, making it an instance of a generalization, a detail, and a generalization, which includes all cases similar to the detail, including pits, ditches, and caves, indicating that the restriction applies to them as well. Therefore, the clause “These may you eat of all that are in the waters” is necessary to teach that all fish in pits, ditches, and caves are permitted.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara rejects the klal-prat reading: ‘in the waters’ appears twice, so the structure is generalization-detail-generalization, not generalization-detail. A klal-prat-klal includes all cases resembling the detail — which would sweep pits, ditches, and caves into the restriction. Therefore the additional clause ‘these you may eat of all that are in the waters’ is genuinely needed to teach that creatures in pits, ditches, and caves are nonetheless permitted.
Key Terms:
- חָזַר וְכָלַל = [the verse] generalized again
- כְּלָל וּפְרָט וּכְלָל = generalization, detail, generalization
Segment 12
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
But the two generalizations are adjacent! Ravina cites the Eretz-Yisrael rule for juxtaposed generalizations (continues 67a)
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָנֵי תְּרֵי כְּלָלֵי דִּסְמִיכִי לַהֲדָדֵי נִינְהוּ, אָמַר רָבִינָא: כִּדְאָמְרִי בְּמַעְרְבָא, כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁאַתָּה מוֹצֵא שְׁנֵי כְּלָלוֹת הַסְּמוּכִין זֶה לָזֶה –
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: How can this verse be an instance of a generalization, a detail, and a generalization? These are two generalizations that are adjacent to each other. Both instances of the term “in the waters” precede the detail, such that the verse is actually a generalization, a generalization, and a detail. Ravina said: As they say in the West, Eretz Yisrael: Wherever you find two generalizations juxtaposed one with the other, followed by a specific detail,
קלאוד על הדף:
A final difficulty: the two instances of ‘in the waters’ are adjacent (both before the detail), so the structure is really generalization-generalization-detail, not a true klal-prat-klal. Ravina answers by citing a teaching from the West (Eretz Yisrael): wherever you find two generalizations juxtaposed to each other followed by a detail — there is a special rule for treating them, which the Gemara begins to state as the amud ends, continuing onto the next daf.
Key Terms:
- תְּרֵי כְּלָלֵי דִּסְמִיכִי = two generalizations that are adjacent
- כִּדְאָמְרִי בְּמַעְרְבָא = ‘as they say in the West’ (Eretz Yisrael)
- שְׁנֵי כְּלָלוֹת הַסְּמוּכִין זֶה לָזֶה = two generalizations juxtaposed to one another